Yeah if you saw the quality of my coworkers' code you would not be saying this.

Well, git is for source control, not binary artefacts

Only because it is bad at binary artefacts. There's no fundamental reason you shouldn't be able to put them in version control.

It's not much of an argument to say "VCSes shouldn't be able to store binaries because they aren't good at it".

What are your requirements? What do you need this for?

Typically there's a third or first party project that I want to use in my project. Sometimes I want to be able to modify it too (soft fork).

And why do you think everyone else needs the same?

Because I've worked in at least 3 companies who want to do this. Nobody had a good solution. I've talked to colleagues that also worked in other companies that wanted this. Often they come up with their own hacky solutions (git subtree, git subrepo, Google's repo, etc. etc. - there are at least half a dozen of these tools).

It’s quite possible you are doing it wrong.

No offence, but your instinctive defence of Git and your instant leap to "you're holding it wrong" are a pretty dead giveaway that you haven't stopped to think about how it could be better.

Tbh these aren't things that are big issues with Git. The biggest issues I have are:

• Storing large files. LFS is a shitty hack that barely works.
• Integrating other repos. Git submodules are a buggy hack, and Git subtree is.. better... but still a hack that adds its own flaws.

Fix those and it will take over Git in a very short time. Otherwise it's just going to hang around as a slightly nicer but niche alternative.

WebP was the first widely supported format to support lossy transparency. It's worth it for that alone.

Not an issue. Install Clangd and CodeLLDB. They are much better anyway (see my other comment).

The real golden jewel that Microsoft keeps to itself is the Remote SSH extension. There's no open source alternative as far as I know.

There's also Pylance but that only matters if you're using Python.

Yeah it's too late. Maybe if they had taken this problem seriously 20 years ago...

The classic "I had it hard so you should too" mentality. I think it fundamentally comes from an animal desire for fairness - it isn't fair that these old geezers had to put up with C shooting them in the feet at the drop of a bracket, while the new kids on the block get friendly (usually) compiler errors instead.

But I think if you don't recognise that instinct in yourself and overcome it then you have failed as a human.

I'll always remember the pushback to making xfree86 easier to configure (yes I'm old). Back in the day you had to edit a stupid text file to tell X that your screen could display 1024x768 and your mouse had three buttons. Then some upstarts came along and make it automatically detect that. The absolute cheek! Our ancestors have been practicing xfree86config since before you were a wee bebe! Etc. etc.

It's a human condition.

>= and <= match the mathematical operators. The question you want to ask is why doesn't it use = for equality, and the answer is that = is already used for assignment (inherited from C among other languages).

In theory a language could use = for assignment and equality but it might be a bit confusing and error prone. Maybe not though. Someone try it and report back.

You missed the point. He understands all these things you tried to explain. The point is that your definition of the word "concurrency" is objectively wrong.

You:

you seem to be doing multiple things at the same time. In reality they are run little by little one after another

The actual meaning of the word "concurrency":

The property or an instance of being concurrent; something that happens at the same time as something else.

Wiktionary actually even disagrees with your pedantic definition even in computing!

(computer science, by extension) A property of systems where several processes execute at the same time.

I suspect that concurrency and parallelism were actually used interchangeably until multicore became common, and then someone noticed the distinction (which is usually irrelevant) and said "aha! I'm going to decide that the words have this precise meaning" and nerds love pedantic "ackshewally"s so it became popular.

I feel like this is one of those XKCDs that automatically opts you out of sensible debate if you post it.

The reason systemd absorbs other services is because it's trying to make a proper integrated OS userland. Having a load of separate components that don't really know anything about each other kiiind of works, but it's super janky.

For example Windows has supported a secure attention key sequence (ctrl-alt-del) for literal decades. Linux still doesn't support this very basic - and critical for shared computing environments like schools - feature, because it requires coordinating X11 and logind and the kernel and god knows what else and they simply aren't properly integrated.

The systemd hatred strongly reminds me of when Xorg started automating the config and you no longer needed xfree86config. You didn't need to manually write mode lines and tell X that your mouse had 3 buttons, and some people did not like that.

Yes it sounds completely insane that people wouldn't like this obvious improvement where things used to require tedious manual configuration and now they worked automatically but some people really didn't I promise! My theory is that it's because a) it made their hard won knowledge obsolete, making them less smart relatively, and b) they resented the fact that they had to go through the pain but new people wouldn't and that isn't fair.

Seems similar with systemd. I would like my laptop to sleep properly please.

Also I have actually read some of the sudo source code. There's absolutely no way that code should be SUID. Insane.

Neat FP style. Pretty verbose though. Someone should invent a terser syntax so you don't need to write do_two_things everywhere. It's a common operation so maybe it could even be a single character.